There's a time and a place to get more into the details of the umbrella terms that are "true" and "false" in the context of logic.... but I don't think it's worth wading into at this particular juncture. Another avenue for a good thread perhaps? — Artemis

Yes. We agree.

Ok. So what do you think that definitive delineation is? — Artemis

This is what I wrote in a post to @Tom Storm earlier in this thread:

You've brought up "presuppositions," which is Collingwood's term for the content of metaphysics. Actually, he says "absolute presuppositions." I've shied away from using his terms because I was afraid it would send us off in a direction different from where I wanted to head. I'm glad you did though and I have no problem with using them more if it will help.

I think the way you've described it is consistent with my understanding of how metaphysics works. I think you're example - "Reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described" - is a good example of an absolute presupposition. As for science, I've thought that it's metaphysical foundation is related to physicalism, realism, and materialism at least. I'm not sure the implications of applying any of those three, or something else, to science. — T Clark

As I noted, I was afraid to bring all this into this discussion because it deserves one of it's own. There have been many over the years, including one by me. I will start a "What is Metaphysics" thread. Unless you want to.

Well, to be honest, I didn't read the OP. Only the title. It asked about the difference between science and philosophy. I gave a direct answer: science is knowledge, philosophy is talking about it. — Verdi

I've been thinking about what I wrote since last night. I think I was wrong and I feel bad, especially since it was your first day. I guess it was that you were writing about philosophy of science instead of philosophy in general, but that's silly.

As I wrote earlier, your post is interesting and well written.

Once science and philosophy were not separated. Knowledge and talking about it were one and the same. In our time, I think philosophy should be more than just talking about science. — Verdi

Interesting and well written. Welcome to the forum.

Not to quibble, but I don't see how this is relevant to the subject of this thread, specified in the opening post (OP).

If you are interested in this issue, you might look into Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing." — James Riley

I was going to mention Stone's essay, but you beat me to it. It's a bit broader issue than @Shawn brought up. It deals with the rights of the environment as a whole rather than domesticated animals. I think the two issues are closely related.

Relevant to that, in the US, the federal government acts as a Natural Resources Trustee representing the interests of the environment. This program runs parallel to other federal and state environmental laws and regulations and sometimes involves requirements for mitigation or repair of environmental damage.

Is F=ma true? — Banno

I feel like you're setting me up for something, but I'll bite. "F = ma" is a scientific statement, and thus has a truth value. Yes, it is true.

Aren't the presuppositions of science (which go into making such a statement) comprised of metaphysical positions - e.g., that reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described? And wouldn't physicalism be the metaphysical foundation of science? — Tom Storm

You've brought up "presuppositions," which is Collingwood's term for the content of metaphysics. Actually, he says "absolute presuppositions." I've shied away from using his terms because I was afraid it would send us off in a direction different from where I wanted to head. I'm glad you did though and I have no problem with using them more if it will help.

I think the way you've described it is consistent with my understanding of how metaphysics works. I think you're example - "Reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described" - is a good example of an absolute presupposition. As for science, I've thought that it's metaphysical foundation is related to physicalism, realism, and materialism at least. I'm not sure the implications of applying any of those three, or something else, to science.

This is fun.

That's a tough one. That would be the case if the self "T Clark" is a metaphysical entity. — Manuel

Under some metaphysical schemes, my self is an illusion. I don't think that would make me a metaphysical entity, I think it would just mean I don't exist in that metaphysical universe. Click a switch, turn on a realist metaphysic, and T Clark, philosophical hero to the benighted masses flashes back into existence.

It seems to me that selves are epistemological entities related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world. — Manuel

Sorry, I'm going to be cute again - The world is related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world independent of us.

I had a bunch written up, but then I realized, we're more or less quibbling over semantics. You said before that a claim about a non-existent thing is meaningless, I say it's false. Tomayto, tomahto, because false simply means not true, and meaningless would mean not true as well. Same dif. — Artemis

I don't think it's that simple. "Not true" is not the same as "false." In this case, they live in different universes. I think this is an important issue, but I'm not sure I've been addressing it right in the past. I need to think about it some more.

But that leads us to what Banno and I were addressing earlier: where something veers into science versus philosophy versus literal and figurative belly-aching is more content-specific than anything else, and even there more overlap exists than one might initially assume. — Artemis

I don't agree with this. I see a relatively definitive delineation between metaphysical and scientific issues, statements, and questions. I call it "scientific" because that's the term we've been using, but it's more than that. It includes all of our regular daily interactions with the world.

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement.
— T Clark

It's a statement about the state or nature of an aspect of reality. — Artemis

By that standard "My tummy hurts." is a metaphysical statement.

The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.

Both are (as Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. — Artemis

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement.

Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things. — Artemis

"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement.

No. I think of interpretations of "QT" & "cosmological data" as theoretical, not just conceptual. — 180 Proof

I just wanted to check if you and I are in agreement. For me, making generalizations from observations and the results of experiments and creating theories and models is part of science and is not metaphysical. From what you wrote, I think you agree with that.

Never heard of one that actually disputes the cogito. — Artemis

I'm sure many people have questioned it. Here's an answer to the question "Is 'cogito ergo sum' true or false?" from Quora.

Nietzsche had an interesting counter-point to this idea. Namely, he asserted that it would be more correct to say "something thinks, therefore something exists." To assert that "you" exist, you have to presuppose the existence of a unified "you" (which means that you are already assuming "I am"), which is non-trivial. After all, are we so certain that the mind is a single, unified entity? If that is so, then how can the mind be at odds with itself (an experience that I am sure that most everyone is familiar with)? So, perhaps, we should view not as the mind being aware of its own thought, but as a two-body system, where one entity thinks, and another entity perceives this thought. (I seem to recall that fMRI suggested that first the brain has an insight, and only afterward does the forebrain become aware of this fact, but I am not a neurobiologist and am not qualified to assert such a thing.)

Personally, I am of the mind (no pun intended) that "cogito ergo sum" is an axiom. It is something that we assume to be true, mostly because if it is not true, then there is no possible discourse that we could have, and that doesn't seem particularly useful.

Here's a link:

https://www.quora.com/Is-cogito-ergo-sum-true-or-false?share=1

I think "cogito ergo sum" is more a definition of existence than a statement about it.

it's a truth claim. It's either true or false. — Artemis

If my self doesn't exist, if there is no "I," "I think, therefore I am," is not a "truth claim," it's meaningless.

Philosophy and science both make metaphysical claims. They differ in focus, but not in kind. — Artemis

Can you give a example of a scientific metaphysical claim.

The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. That was Descartes whole point. — Artemis

There are many philosophies and psychologies which do not recognize the existence of the self - me, myself, I.

The other is trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves (not as constructs, but as objectively existing observers) therein. — Artemis

Just because "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," is a useful way of "trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves," doesn't mean it's true.

Are the correspondence and coherence theories of truth both true? My answer - No, neither is true.

As far as I can discern them, the basic difference between philosophy and science is the latter concerns defeasible reasoning towards the best explanations / predictive models (cognitivity re: theorems, theories ~ propositions) whereas the former concerns reflective reasoning towards better, more probitive, questions / conceptual interpretations (noncognitivity re: ideas ~ suppositions). In other words, scientists strive to know nature (presence) and philosophers seek to understand reality (absence). — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if this is different from what I wrote or not. A question and a comment. 1) When you say "conceptual interpretations" do you mean like the various interpretations of quantum theory? Or maybe the big bang theory as an interpretation of the meaning of cosmological data collected by scientists? 2) In my experience, "nature" and "reality" are often used as synonyms.

In more common terms philosophy is more concerned with the validity of questions and science is more concerned with answering questions. — I like sushi

Is this different from what I said? Is it inconsistent with what I said?

I think, therefore I am. — Artemis

Is this true? Is it false? If it's true, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2" is true?

P.s. As for the coherence theory of truth... well, I give you the correspondence theory of truth:
The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world. (From the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia) — Artemis

I was using the statement about the coherence theory of truth to give an example of a statement about truth which is not true or false. It was not my intent to endorse a particular definition of truth. It works just as well for your correspondence theory:

Is "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," a true statement? If so, is it true in the same sense that "Paris is the capital of France" is true?

So, in what sense do you accept metaphysical claims. I have some idea of what that would look like — TheMadFool

This just feels like we're going around in circles.

Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say. — TheMadFool

Yes, I said that.

Scientific antirealism is the view that science should refrain from making metaphysical claims, it being possible that metaphysical claims are true or false. — TheMadFool

I don't understand. I just said that metaphysical statements are not true or false. This is why I thought you hadn't read the OP.

you reject metaphysical claims — TheMadFool

I do not reject metaphysical claims. This whole thread is based on me making a metaphysical claim.

scientific antirealism holds that truth is not what science is about. — TheMadFool

This is outside the scope of this discussion.

What's so different between saying "God exists" is neither true nor false and believing "God exists" isn't what's important? — TheMadFool

As I noted in the OP, "Religion is a bit ambiguous, since some think the existence of God is a matter of fact." For the purposes of this discussion, I don't have any further position on that matter. It's been argued many times on the forum. This is not the place to fight the battle again.

Oh cause you said morals deal with values not fact. So, I countered it with a response. — Caldwell

As I've said in several posts in this thread, my claim is that ethical questions don't have true or false answers, i.e. that ethical statements are not facts. I never said that ethical arguments don't involve facts. That would mean that ethics has no relation to the world we live in, which would be silly.

For one thing, Schopenhauer's argument for morals cites suffering as a condition of humanity. I'd say, he is using a fact that there is suffering. — Caldwell

There's a valid example. Now explain how it is relevant to my claim. As I've noted, I never claimed that ethics and morals didn't involve facts, only that ethical and moral statements, positions, are not facts. Those are completely different things. Let's lay this out:

Agreed - human life involves suffering. It's even one of the fundamental facts of Buddhism. Where does that lead? Does it follow that humans have a responsibility to help our fellows deal with suffering? Is "Humans have a responsibility to help our fellows deal with suffering" a true statement. If so, is it a true statement in the same sense as "1 + 1 = 2" is?

I made some mistakes in my recent response that might be confusing. They will probably show up in the link notifying you of a mention. Go directly to the post instead of following the link.

The values are vigorously argued, — Caldwell

Yes, true.

A valid argument is what's common among these disciplines. — Caldwell

Validity and truth are not the same thing. I didn't say, and I don't believe, that metaphysical questions aren't important and don't have value. In a sense, they are more important than facts, because we have a role in choosing the answer, even if we aren't aware we do.

They make use of facts to support their arguments. — Caldwell

I didn't say they didn't, and that isn't relevant to my claims. Or, maybe it is. Explain to me how.

You're espousing scientific antirealism - that science doesn't/shouldn't resort to making metaphysical claims which would be the case if scientists say that scientific theories are true i.e. for example a theory about quarks means that quarks actually exist. — TheMadFool

I don't think you read my OP very carefully.

Why is there a subdiscipline of philosophy where Metaphysics and Epistemology grouped together? — Shawn

Whatever the specific reason that the forum decided to do that, if you look up various definitions of "metaphysics," they include epistemology about half the time. I think it is generally understood that they are closely related. I go further myself. I think separating the study of the nature of things from the study of how we know the nature of things is wrong-headed. They are really the same thing.

Science gives true or false answers? I thought the pop wisdom was that scientific statements were never true, only probable. Or falsifiable. — Banno

This is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement.

I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic and Phil of Math (or Phil of any Science) from your list of philosophical subdisciplines. I'll stick to talking about Logic though, because I know it better than the others. — Artemis

To be clear, I excluded "Logic and Philosophy of Math" because 1) They seem different from the rest and 2) I really don't know what to say about them. As for Philosophy of Science, I didn't exclude it. Although I foresee some confusion fitting it into my scheme, I feel like I know enough to deal with it.

Logic is the foundation for the other subdisciplines. You can't do the others without knowing Logic. Even if you dislike Logic and think some of it is wrong or whatever, you have to use the rules of Logic to get anywhere analytically. — Artemis

There's a discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to dig in because 1) as I noted, I'm not good with logic and 2) I don't think the discussion we could have is specifically relevant to the issue I am trying to deal with.

The rest of philosophy deals with facts and truth in varying degrees. I think it would be more helpful to think of it less as "either/or" and more as "both/and." Philosophy deals with, for example, values AND truth claims. Metaphysics deals generally more with claims that either are or aren't true, and Ethics less so. — Artemis

I didn't say philosophy doesn't deal with facts and truth. I said philosophy does not deal with questions that have true or false answers. For example, from Wikipedia entry for Coherence Theory of Truth - "Truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole." This statement is about "truth," but, I claim at least, it is neither true nor false.

There's also the part that philosophy draws on data from the world to make claims. Ethics could, to some degree, make subject-less claims I suppose. ... But for the most part it's making value claims about the real world based on data that is either true or false. — Artemis

Ok, let's try this - "It's wrong to intentionally harm people." Is that statement true? If so, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2," is? I'm working this out for myself at the same time I'm sending it back to you.

"The correct answer to what is the capital of France is Paris"
The correct way to study cancer is using science."

'Correct' plays a different role in both of these ideas.

And they are provisional - If you are studying people's 'lived experience' of cancer, the answer might be different. — Tom Storm

If you are saying that, for some people, prayer might provide a better, or at least more humane, way to deal with their cancer than science, I agree. I was going to add an argument something like that, but I didn't want to deal with the issue with vague arm-waving. I should be able to address it head on.

Why this question? — Tom Storm

I think it's a good example of the kind of distinction I'm claiming is important. I didn't propose it as a way to argue against your point. I ran the thought experiment on myself at the same time I proposed it to you. I think it's an interesting question. I'm curious how other people will respond.

This is not intended as a criticism or animadversion, but what's the point of elevating utility if there isn't a demonstrable correct way to arrive there relative to the issue at hand? — Tom Storm

I'm not sure I understand your question. You and I agree that science is a better, more effective, way of searching for a cure for cancer than prayer. Does "better" mean "correct?" I'll reformulate that response in a way that is more difficult for my argument to handle - Is the statement "Science is a better way of finding a cure for cancer than prayer," true? That's really interesting. I'll think about it some more.

Susan Haack (a prominent philosopher of science) suggests strongly that there is no scientific method as such. I'm paraphrasing, but for her there are just approaches used to test if something is likely and can be used by law, cooking and science.

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists. Susan Haack — Tom Storm

Haack says there are a set of "inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers." You know... methods. Methods of science. The scientific method. I'm not trying to be cute. She's being lazy with her argument.

I've noticed that you often come back to this point. I wonder if this is slightly evasive. Surely a scientific approach to a problem is more correct if the matter is a hospital research team trying to treat or cure cancer? — Tom Storm

Yes, I think we can all agree, at least all of us here, that using a scientific approach in researching cancer will be more effective, useful, than prayer.

We seem to go out of our way to avoid using terms like right or wrong, correct and incorrect, perhaps in an attempt to sidestep debate. — Tom Storm

I strongly disagree that acknowledging that choosing a particular procedure is useful as opposed to correct is an attempt to avoid debate. It certainly isn't in my case. The selection is made on the basis of human value, usefulness, effectiveness. It's an important distinction.

Thought experiment.. Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is?

I like the way you've laid this out. Let me see if I can respond clearly. Here are the steps you lay out:

• Observe phenomena
• Identify regularities
• Generate hypotheses
• Test hypotheses

The process you've described is the scientific method, which is philosophy, i.e. epistemology, a valid process for obtaining knowledge. You haven't provided any information on the content that is being processed, i.e. actual observations, regularities, hypotheses, and testing. That content is the science.

In line with my way of seeing things, the process you've described, what we call the scientific method, is not correct or incorrect, it is more or less useful. We have found it to be very useful in a lot of cases. I'm a big fan of the scientific method.

A couple of questions: what is "flaming", what defines a "troll", and what is a "sockpuppet", or rather, what is "sockpuppetry"? (I don't use "social media" platforms like Facebook, etc., so I'm probably way behind the curve on such terminology.) — Michael Zwingli

Although racism or similar sin may be the harshest judgement, based on my observations, the most common reason given for banning is "low quality posts." That's what Marco was gotten for. That standard is much less definitive and is open to wide interpretation. Some people think the moderators are too quick to judge.

He has rejoined several times since then. — SophistiCat

might it be thought that "Prishon" was another avatar of said "Marco"? I must say, the notion occurred to me almost immediately that "Graveltty" might in actuality be "Prishon" with a newfound discipline, mostly because of the whole "physics" thing, but also...uuhhh...general tenor. — Michael Zwingli

For what it's worth, I was a strong supporter of Marco in his original iteration, the name of which I can't remember. You can go back and see how several of us tried. That being said, he has not just been resurrected once, or twice, or a few times. I've lost count. At least 10 I think. He clearly has some problems and he's taking it out on the forum. From the things he's said, this isn't the first on-line community he has disrupted.

Whatever my thoughts on the original banning, he clearly does not belong on the forum. He's the last person who should be unbanned.

You have a good attitude toward all this. Welcome to the forum.

Graveltty was banned a couple of days ago. May we have some idea why? I thought he was contributing well on one thread, and on others I did not myself notice anything objectionable. Did he break a rule or cross a line? — tim wood

I think he was another iteration of Marco, the Man With a Thousand Usernames.

I can not participate in many of the threads because I do not have enough knowledge to participate. When wanting to be a member of a group it is part of the deal that we know something abouthow and what members of the group think. Especially with western philosophy, it is essential to know "how" the thinking is done. That is the higher-order thinking skills. This is different from eastern thinking.

We might say yoga is a more physical-spiritual and philosophical experience than the more abstract western philosophy. You know, being the good you want to be, rather than holding a concept of good at arm's length and analyzing it. :lol: Thanks to a radio explanation I listen to last night, I kind of get the west has more of a mind/body disconnection than the east and this seems to come from the linear logic of Aristotle? — Athena

As I always say, there's only one world. All the different ways of talking about it are describing the same thing. Although your description of the difference between eastern and western philosophies is somewhat condescending, there is truth in it. My vast oversimplification is that the eastern approach deals with awareness and the western approach deals with reason. If you leave out either one, you leave out half the world.

Is THAT true or a fact?? — Artemis

Neither, all the way down.

Okay, I will accommodate that request. If you care about democracy you might care that it is based on Greek and Roman philosophy and being literate in those philosophies is important to manifesting and defending democracy. — Athena

This is a good argument. I had a couple of ideas for a response, but was not satisfied. I'll work on it.

I will also argue it is not possible to expand our consciousness very much without being literate in philosophy. The more we learn, the bigger our lives are, and the bigger our lives are, the smaller the problems are. — Athena

I don't think being literate in philosophy is necessary in order to "expand our consciousness." Lao Tzu might say the opposite is true. Learning is important to me too, but not necessarily learning about philosophy.

Is that true or a fact? — Artemis

Neither. It's philosophy.